CASTE SYSTEM!!! WHAT? WHY? and HOW? [Part-1] Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism? Demolishing a Myth This paper, citing evidence from the ancient scriptures, attempts to establish that Hinduism – its vedic and classic variants – did not support the caste system; it rigorously opposed it in practice and principle. Even after the emergence of the caste system, Hindu society still saw considerable occupational and social mobility. Moreover, Hinduism created legends to impress on the popular mind the invalidity of the caste system – a fact further reinforced by the constant efflorescence of reform movements throughout history. The caste system survived in spite of this because of factors that ranged from the socio-economic to the ecological, which helped sustain and preserve balance among communities in a non-modern world. M V Nadkarni One need not despair of ever knowing the truth of one’s religion, because the fundamentals of Hinduism, as of every great religion, are unchangeable, and easily understood. – M K Gandhi, Young India, October 6, 1921 It is necessary to demolish the myth that caste system is an intrinsic part of Hinduism. This myth is believed by orthodox elements within Hinduism and also is propagated by elements outside Hinduism with the mischievous intent of proselytising. Ironically both, though opposed to each other, jointly do a lot of damage. Moreover, this myth has harmed relations between the so-called upper castes and lower castes. This paper intends to logically and with documentary proof show that Hinduism – even vedic and classical Hinduism – not only does not support the caste system, but has taken lots of pains to oppose it both in principle and practice, making it obvious that caste system is not an intrinsic part of Hindu canon, philosophy and even practice. It will then show that the caste system emerged and survived due to totally different factors, which had nothing to do with Hindu religion. I What Caste System Means Caste system as discussed here includes untouchability too, but wherever necessary it will be referred to separately. As we shall note, untouchability came into the caste system much later. The following features are generally taken as essential in characterising caste system. – It means not simply a division of labour, with each ‘varna’ associated with a type of occupation, but also a division of labour determined by birth permitting no occupational/social mobility. This is what distinguishes caste from class. While the former is hereditary, the latter is not – at least in principle. – It is a rigid system, separating caste from caste, with restrictions on inter-dining and inter-marriage, due to a morbid fear of ‘varna-sankara’ (mixture of varnas). ‘Caste’ corresponds to jatis, and each varna is supposed to be a cluster of jatis, though there is sometimes ambiguity about which jati belongs to which varna. It is varnas that are cited in canon, not jatis. Restrictions on inter-dining and inter-marriage pertained not merely to varnas but also to jatis. – It is a hierarchical system, one below the other in ritual (or purity) status, with several disabilities imposed on the fourth varna of shudras and even more on the untouchables known as ‘antyajas’. It was not, however, hierarchical in power and wealth at least as between the upper castes. Dumont thought that the distinction between status and power is basic to understanding caste sysem [Dumont 1999:65-91]. – The system is associated with a notion of purity vis-à-vis pollution, with utmost purity at the level of brahmins declining successively with kshatriyas, vaishyas, and then shudras. At the other end, untouchables are treated as most impure or polluted. A touch of them is supposed to pollute others including shudras. A gradation of hierarchy and pollution was found among untouchables too, for example, bhangis (scavengers) considered as more polluted than say, mahars (agricultural labourers). Initially the notion of purity vs pollution may have been based on the need to maintain cleanliness, but it soon developed into an institutionalised form where pollution was associated with birth. The upper castes when polluted could, however, get rid of their pollution through ritual bath and such other expiatory measures. The notion of purity and pollution developed into a powerful instrument to discourage and prevent varnasankara. – The whole system along with its taboos and restrictions is authenticated by religion or canon, giving it a religious sanctity. – At the foundation of the whole system there is a production system, which is subsistence-oriented and locally based rather than oriented to larger market, and production relations being of patron-client type, based on mutual dependence. Such a system is not necessarily geared for the generation of economic surplus and its appropriation, as it was not oriented to the larger market but to local needs. II Our Approach to the Demolition of the Myth I reject totally the myth that caste system, as defined by these features either collectively or singly, forms an integral part of Hinduism. Why Hinduism is not varna dharma understood as jati or birth based, will become clear in the course of this paper. Hinduism can be defined, as Gandhiji did, as search for truth, non-violence, compassion for all beings and tolerance. Consistent with its commitment to search for truth, it is also marked by liberalism. Hinduism is a dynamic religion, not fixed or revealed once for all, and hence cannot be identified exclusively with the religion of the Vedas and Upanishads, nor with the religion expounded by ‘Dharmashastras’, nor with the Hinduism of the three eminent Acharyas – Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, nor also exclusively with medieval Hinduism and modern Hinduism. All these phases represent Hinduism, and have contributed to its development. Moreover, there is no disjointedness between different phases of Hinduism, each deriving its inspiration from the previous ones. In that sense, there is both change and continuity in Hinduism. Since however, it is accepted by all as beyond controversy that medieval Bhakti movement was a protest against caste system and since it is equally well known that modern Hinduism as explained by Swami Vivekananda, Aurobindo and others also has rejected caste system, the focus of this paper is on previous or classical phases of Hinduism. It is this earlier Hinduism, which may be termed as classical Hinduism, that is taken as supportive to the caste system, and it is this myth that is being demolished by this paper. Our greater attention to the previous phases of Hinduism is thus not because Hinduism is defined in terms of these phases, but simply because the contention concerns these phases. The myth is demolished in the following way: (i) by showing that there is no strong correlation between Hinduism and caste system, either spatially or temporally; (ii) by showing that even after the caste system emerged in Hindu society, there was considerable social and occupational mobility, and that none of the defining features of caste system listed above were strictly observed in practice particularly in the classical period; (iii) by showing that far from supporting the caste system, Hindu canon and philosophy were actually against caste system based on birth; (iv) by showing that, in addition, Hinduism created legends to impress the popular mind that the caste system is immoral and invalid; (v) by showing that within the framework of Hinduism, there took place several movements against caste, starting from Bhakti movements continuing to more modern movements; (vi) by showing that caste system emerged and survived in spite of Hindu canon and philosophy, because of factors which had nothing to do with Hindu religion. III No Correlation between Hinduism and Caste System The statement that there is no correlation between Hinduism and caste may sound surprising to many. If not in exactly the same words, this is the sum and substance of what Dumont, the most highly regarded authority on caste system, and later even Gail Omvedt – not known to be an admirer of Hinduism – had to say [Dumont Omvedt 1994:31-32]. Dumont refers to caste distinctions including even untouchable castes, among Christians in India in different regions. The discrimination against untouchable Christians is reflected in the form of their separate seating in churches, and even separate burial grounds. Even today, one can see advertisements in newspapers seeking ‘Catholic brahmin’ spouses for Catholic brahmins. Islam, supposed to be an egalitarian religion, is not free from castes at least in south Asia. Dumont himself refers to different communities within ‘ashrafs’, who are supposed to be high caste, and also ‘non-ashrafs’ who have a lower status. Among the non-ashrafs also, there are three levels of status: ‘(1) the converts of superior caste, who are mainly rajputs – except for those who have been admitted into the ashraf; (2) a large number of professional groups corresponding to the artisan castes of the Hindus, …; (3) converted untouchables who have preserved their functions. These groups indeed seem to be endogamous ….’ [Dumont 1999:208]. There is no commensality also between ashrafs and non-ashrafs, due to difference in their status [ibid: 207]. There is caste system among Buddhists of Sri Lanka also. Some lingayats claim that they are non-Hindus because they do not accept the Vedas and the varna dharma, and yet they too are not free from castes and ritual gradation. Basaveshwara (Basavanna), who led the Bhakti movement whose followers became known as veerashaiva or lingayats in Karnataka, was truly against caste system. But unfortunately, he could not succeed in preventing caste system among his latter-day ‘followers’. On the other hand, Gail Omvedt points out that among Hindus settled for many generations in Surinam, West Indies, Mauritius, Bali, Fiji and other centres outside India, caste system was weak, almost non-existent. There took place inter-mixture more freely, including inter-dining and inter-marriage, and no one took varna-based castes seriously, though identities in terms of regional jatis (such as Marvaris and Gujaratis) have not disappeared. Gail Omvedt, therefore, says significantly that caste is more a feature of south Asia than of Hinduism per se, taking root in this region because of its peculiar social and economic characteristics. Now we may examine correlation between Hinduism and caste system over time. The first reference to the four varnas comes in the tenth mandala of Rg Veda, in two verses of Purusha Sukta (quoted in another section below). According to several scholars who have made deep research on the theme, the tenth mandala was chronologically the last to be composed. There is a good consensus on the point that previous to this, there was no varna system in vedic society. Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana also mention that in Krita yuga, there was no caste, but only one varna of human beings – that of the children of Vivaswata Manu [Arvind Sharma 2000:136]. Hence, the word manava, popular in all Indian languages. Puranas and other Hindu scriptures have preserved the racial memory of a golden age in the past when there was no caste. According to B R Ambedkar, there were only three varnas in vedic society, and no fourth varna of shudras. He says, the economy had advanced enough to give rise to a division of labour but there was no hierarchy. He refers to other cosmologies in Hindu texts, but they are all secular, without hint of a hierarchy and without hint of a divine origin. He feels therefore that the two verses in Purusha Sukta are an interpolation, added much later after the caste system was established.1 According to him shudras as an ethnic group were a part of kshatriyas, and a part of Aryan society itself. He does not accept the theory of western scholars according to which shudras and untouchables were originally non-Aryans who were defeated by Aryans, and taken into the vedic society giving them a lower status. On the other hand, shudras were very much a part of the ruling society, several of them being kings. As per Ambedkar, they fell from grace and became the fourth varna when brahmins stopped performing the rite of ‘upanayana’ for them as a revenge against harassment and insults suffered by them at the hands of some shudra kings. He also says that untouchability is a post-Buddhist phenomenon, which emerged as a result of Hindus giving up sacrifice of animals and beef-eating under the influence of Buddhism, but they went to such an extreme that those who continued to eat beef were regarded as untouchables.2 Whether or not one accepts Ambedkar’s theory of origin of shudras and untouchables, scholars are agreed that varna-system based on birth is very much a post-vedic3 feature, and untouchability is a post-Buddhist phenomenon. This means that at some time, maybe for about first half of the long history of Hinduism since 4000 BCE to the present day, there was Hinduism but no caste system. This is so even according to Ambedkar himself. And, as we shall see in the concluding part of this paper, Hinduism can survive after the collapse of caste system.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:19:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015